The mutationathon highlights the importance of reaching standardization in estimates of pedigree-based germline mutation rates

  1. Lucie A Bergeron  Is a corresponding author
  2. Søren Besenbacher
  3. Tychele Turner
  4. Cyril J Versoza
  5. Richard J Wang
  6. Alivia Lee Price
  7. Ellie Armstrong
  8. Meritxell Riera
  9. Jedidiah Carlson
  10. Hwei-yen Chen
  11. Matthew W Hahn
  12. Kelley Harris
  13. April Snøfrid Kleppe
  14. Elora H López-Nandam
  15. Priya Moorjani
  16. Susanne P Pfeifer
  17. George P Tiley
  18. Anne D Yoder
  19. Guojie Zhang
  20. Mikkel H Schierup  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  2. Aarhus University, Denmark
  3. Washington University in St. Louis, United States
  4. Arizona State University, United States
  5. Indiana University, United States
  6. Stanford University, United States
  7. University of Washington, United States
  8. California Academy of Sciences, United States
  9. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  10. Duke University, United States

Abstract

In the past decade, several studies have estimated the human per-generation germline mutation rate using large pedigrees. More recently, estimates for various non-human species have been published. However, methodological differences among studies in detecting germline mutations and estimating mutation rates make direct comparisons difficult. Here, we describe the many different steps involved in estimating pedigree-based mutation rates, including sampling, sequencing, mapping, variant calling, filtering, and how to appropriately account for false-positive and false-negative rates. For each step, we review the different methods and parameter choices that have been used in the recent literature. Additionally, we present the results from a 'Mutationathon', a competition organized among five research labs to compare germline mutation rate estimates for a single pedigree of rhesus macaques. We report almost a two-fold variation in the final estimated rate among groups using different post-alignment processing, calling, and filtering criteria and provide details into the sources of variation across studies. Though the difference among estimates is not statistically significant, this discrepancy emphasizes the need for standardized methods in mutation rate estimations and the difficulty in comparing rates from different studies. Finally, this work aims to provide guidelines for computational and statistical benchmarks for future studies interested in identifying germline mutations from pedigrees.

Data availability

The sequences of the pedigree analyzed are available on NCBI under the accession numbers:SRR10426295;SRR10426294;SRR10426275;SRR10426264;SRR10426253;SRR10426291;SRR10426290;SRR10426256;SRR10426255.The PCR experiment and Sanger resequencing produced for this work are deposited on Genbank under the accession number MZ661796 - MZ662076. Supplementary table 4 describe the data.The scripts used by the participants of the Mutationathon are publically available on different github described in the manuscript.Figure 3, 4 and 5 can be reproduced with the data in Figure 3 - source data 1, Figure 4 - source data 1, and Figure 5 - source data 1 .

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lucie A Bergeron

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    For correspondence
    lucie.a.bergeron@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1877-1690
  2. Søren Besenbacher

    Department of Molecular Medicine (MOMA), Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1455-1738
  3. Tychele Turner

    Department of Genetics, Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Cyril J Versoza

    Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Richard J Wang

    Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alivia Lee Price

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ellie Armstrong

    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7107-6318
  8. Meritxell Riera

    Bioinformatics Research Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jedidiah Carlson

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Hwei-yen Chen

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Matthew W Hahn

    Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5731-8808
  12. Kelley Harris

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0302-2523
  13. April Snøfrid Kleppe

    Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7866-3056
  14. Elora H López-Nandam

    California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Priya Moorjani

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Susanne P Pfeifer

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1378-2913
  17. George P Tiley

    Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0053-0207
  18. Anne D Yoder

    Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Guojie Zhang

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Mikkel H Schierup

    Bioinformatics Research Center, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
    For correspondence
    mheide@birc.au.dk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Carlsbergfondet (CF16-0663)

  • Guojie Zhang

US national science foundation CAREER (DEB-2045343)

  • Susanne P Pfeifer

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Bergeron et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,535
    views
  • 395
    downloads
  • 51
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Lucie A Bergeron
  2. Søren Besenbacher
  3. Tychele Turner
  4. Cyril J Versoza
  5. Richard J Wang
  6. Alivia Lee Price
  7. Ellie Armstrong
  8. Meritxell Riera
  9. Jedidiah Carlson
  10. Hwei-yen Chen
  11. Matthew W Hahn
  12. Kelley Harris
  13. April Snøfrid Kleppe
  14. Elora H López-Nandam
  15. Priya Moorjani
  16. Susanne P Pfeifer
  17. George P Tiley
  18. Anne D Yoder
  19. Guojie Zhang
  20. Mikkel H Schierup
(2022)
The mutationathon highlights the importance of reaching standardization in estimates of pedigree-based germline mutation rates
eLife 11:e73577.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73577

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73577

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Mauna R Dasari, Kimberly E Roche ... Elizabeth A Archie
    Research Article

    Mammalian gut microbiomes are highly dynamic communities that shape and are shaped by host aging, including age-related changes to host immunity, metabolism, and behavior. As such, gut microbial composition may provide valuable information on host biological age. Here, we test this idea by creating a microbiome-based age predictor using 13,563 gut microbial profiles from 479 wild baboons collected over 14 years. The resulting ‘microbiome clock’ predicts host chronological age. Deviations from the clock’s predictions are linked to some demographic and socio-environmental factors that predict baboon health and survival: animals who appear old-for-age tend to be male, sampled in the dry season (for females), and have high social status (both sexes). However, an individual’s ‘microbiome age’ does not predict the attainment of developmental milestones or lifespan. Hence, in our host population, gut microbiome age largely reflects current, as opposed to past, social and environmental conditions, and does not predict the pace of host development or host mortality risk. We add to a growing understanding of how age is reflected in different host phenotypes and what forces modify biological age in primates.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Julia D Sigwart, Yunlong Li ... Jin Sun
    Research Article

    A major question in animal evolution is how genotypic and phenotypic changes are related, and another is when and whether ancient gene order is conserved in living clades. Chitons, the molluscan class Polyplacophora, retain a body plan and general morphology apparently little changed since the Palaeozoic. We present a comparative analysis of five reference quality genomes, including four de novo assemblies, covering all major chiton clades, and an updated phylogeny for the phylum. We constructed 20 ancient molluscan linkage groups (MLGs) and show that these are relatively conserved in bivalve karyotypes, but in chitons they are subject to re-ordering, rearrangement, fusion, or partial duplication and vary even between congeneric species. The largest number of novel fusions is in the most plesiomorphic clade Lepidopleurida, and the chitonid Liolophura japonica has a partial genome duplication, extending the occurrence of large-scale gene duplication within Mollusca. The extreme and dynamic genome rearrangements in this class stands in contrast to most other animals, demonstrating that chitons have overcome evolutionary constraints acting on other animal groups. The apparently conservative phenome of chitons belies rapid and extensive changes in genome.